Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

61

General Discussion / Re: Are Black Holes too forgiving?

« on: January 09, 2019, 08:57:34 AM »

Colonizing a star seems too crazy, like Looney Tunes crazy.

Why, more crazy than traveling space, lasers, flying a chunk of metal through the air, teleportation, phasing into different space? I am not saying literally anything goes, but where exactly do you draw the line of science fiction and why? Because Dyson Sphere is a thing in science fiction.

We can already travel in space.  The Hyperspace thing is a necessary game mechanic to make the universe work, in a sense.
We already have lasers, we just haven't weaponized them.
Teleportation and "phase-space", I suppose we can't say 100% they don't exist in any phase whatsoever, and they're there for a game mechanic to show off the capabilities of high-tech anyways.
Dyson Spheres are about building a megastructure around a sun to harness its energy, not about colonization.
I cannot continue to exist near the surface of the sun as an intact human being.  I would not even be fortunate enough to continue to exist as a liquid.
Not a single building material we have is a solid at the temperature of the surface of the sun.  Most of them aren't even liquid.  Tungsten is one exception as it's barely a liquid at that temperature, but that'd vaporize too if the sun was just a bit hotter, not even 100K hotter.

That's just heat, I'm not even going to mention the crushing surface gravity.

This post fills me with dread for humanity. Conveniently shuffling over stuff you can't explain such as hyperspace, teleportation, phase ships, again waved away as "game mechanic"
But when we come to colonizing suns with example as a Dyson sphere and living on the shell of it while using the core as an energy source, suddenly it's not realistic enough, suddenly "it's not possibly by todays materials and theories"
Apparently even standard sci-fi concepts are too daring for todays mind to include in a sci-fi game that isn't trying to be a simulator. Yeah, magic, random humor. Not like this hasn't been the attitude from humans upon hearing any new revolutionary tech of theories through out humanity. Planes, electricity, computers, phones, cars, practically all of the technology we have right now or even the idea that earth isn't flat was not "magic" tier at some point, yeah, I am sure people said "yeah, I totally foresee that in a thousand years or two, people will be able to explain and harness all of these things.

I agree with the initial suggestion that black holes be deadly. It isn't like you are springing a surprising trap on the players if falling into a black hole is deadly. Implying that you would be is very disingenuous.

The real danger here is to the AI which doesn't seem to be able to navigate already as-is. This could possibly corrected by just adding a behaviour to have AI fleets avoid the vicinity of black holes at all cost unless they were going in for a specific reason (to fight or resupply a base in orbit).

If that would be the case, there would be the possibility to lose pursuers by taking a risky trajectory in an event horizon. So some added gameplay and more work on the AI for the dev. Over all the idea sounds nice to have, but doesn't seem like it's highly important considering the implementation isn't exactly "free"

62

General Discussion / Re: Are Black Holes too forgiving?

« on: January 09, 2019, 07:44:22 AM »

Colonizing a star seems too crazy, like Looney Tunes crazy.

Why, more crazy than traveling space, lasers, flying a chunk of metal through the air, teleportation, phasing into different space? I am not saying literally anything goes, but where exactly do you draw the line of science fiction and why? Because Dyson Sphere is a thing in science fiction.

63

General Discussion / Re: Neat Oddysey Build

« on: January 09, 2019, 04:40:55 AM »

First a foreword to Philder, nice formatting, it's easy to read, follow and understand your points, thanks.

Meh I mixed up sustained dps of Tachyon and Paladin. So sue me, I made a single mistake.

Unlike a lot of the debate happening here, this was easy to check from in game or from the wiki.

"Hey, I think you made a mistake here" and I'll reply "Well ***, you're right. Let me fix that".

I realize that is the more polite version, but you must understand it's not a case of "I think" it's a case of "I know for a fact and I have in game, wiki, game files to back me up" So I worded it how it is. At most you can accuse me is rubbing your nose in it, but I did it factually, which you yourself desired.

Regarding EMP: The reason I say it's useless is not because the EMP amount is small but because people are pairing that with 'sniping', ie: shooting from beyond the target's ability to retaliate, as well as one-shotting targets. In both cases, EMP to weapons is pointless. Either the target is dead and can't retaliate, or it's out of firing range, and can't retaliate. It's only when out of range that disabling engines is useful, but even that is very situational. It's only useful if the target were otherwise capable of getting to safety before reaping additional punishment. Besides that, however, my other argument is on the basis that weapons are balanced based on costs and benefits, and the addition of EMP tacks on costs that you don't necessarily need. If want EMP there are plenty of other sources, none of which would impinge on the potential of a large weapon.

The emp is an additional value that sometimes is highly useful, sometimes not so useful. The best word for it would be situational. While I understand where you are coming from, I personally, find value in EMP effect. You can claim that it's not as important in certain situations and youd be right, but to claim it's nearly pointless, I would disagree with you there.

Basing the core of an outfit on such an unreliable situation as taking advantage of mistakes isn't a very effective design choice. At least, not for a ship like the Paragon.

Agreed, paragon is too slow for that, so unless ships wander into it's range (AI does make that mistake from time to time) and a light ship gets shot and overloaded/destroyed, it's not really taking advantage of mistakes. Odyssey with higher mobility can "create" those positions where it's favorable for it. But yeah, Paragon is much more about straight forward fights.

I will concede that I undervalued the effect of overwhelming shields in a quick burst and causing armor/hull damage, even if the target isn't one-shot, against ships with whom that's possible. Such an effect is capable of causing lasting damage faster than alternatives. Still, I don't believe that this effect is a clear advantage above Plasma and HIL. It is a point in it's favor, however, that I didn't previously count.

Agreed, I never said one is a clear advantage over the other, both are viable, both trade something to get something else. Again it comes down to what you value more, what your fleet composition is and so on, there is advantages and disadvantages to either weapon. Which is in my opinion good balance.

Regarding Armor Calculations: I've already pointed this out in previous replies. But to make things perfectly clear as well as to correct my previous mistakes, here is the math:
Tachyon - 346 sustained dps @ 750 damage:
vs 1500 armor: 346 * ( 750 / ( 750 + 1500) ) = 115 dps
vs 1500 armor hull: 346 * ( 750 / ( 750 + 75) ) = 314 dsp
HIL - 500 sustained dps @ 250 damage (1000 @ 500 vs armor)
vs 1500 armor: 1000 * ( 500 / ( 500 + 1500) ) ) = 250 dps
vs 1500 armor hull: 500 * ( 250 / ( 250 + 75 ) ) = 385 dps

Yeah, higher armor means tach is more favorable due to the burst nature. Lower armor HIL is better. If target has no shields and stays put and you get to fire off HIL nonstop it's clearly better for that, if the target gets into your range only for 1-2 seconds Tach is better or if shields are a bigger factor. Conversely if hull damage is a bigger factor HIL is better.
Again, all depends on what you value, what you are fighting and how is the rest of your fleet composition like (does it compensate for and weakness of your single ship to make it an effective fleet or not).

To round things up, I'll admit that my claim of 400% superiority vs armor and 100% vs hull was hasty and in error. I'll also admit that calling me out on that is 100% deserved. I got angry. Up until that point, people weren't rude to me. I'm tired of communities being dominated by bullish idiots, so I sometimes bite back to show that not everyone will accept their ***.

Yeah but if you feel you are making a decisive comeback, then double check it? Every time I make a statement I personally fear that Dunning Kruger effect is in play. So every time I feel confidence surge in me I need to go and double check if I am even right about what I think I am right.

Since I'm putting out real numbers, I might as well do everything. Feel free to correct any mistakes you see.

I don't see anything wrong at first glance, but the only thing I would add to that is "shields dps" I like to look at weapons while considering all three, shields,armor,hull and compare the numbers like that(while keeping in mind flux costs and any special nature, such as constant or burst, soft flux or hard, range, ammo, emp and so on for the final decision). In fact I usually look at my entire ships loadout dps vs all three of those. If I wanted a really balanced fleet, I would consider the entire fleets dps on all of those three.

Since we're on the topic of the Paragon, maximizing the benefit of the Targeting Core is not necessarily the sole key to success. Picking the longest range weapon on any other ship is not necessarily the best choice.

Sure, as mentioned before, different weapons usually just have different flavor of strength and weakness. The reason for Range being popular is because AI can make good use of it for example.

Regarding My Commentary: Quoting someone out of context has always been a popular logical fallacy. That being said, thank you for calling me out on those nonetheless. I was losing patience and made rude, generalized and absolute comments that don't accurately reflect what happened. While it was true that many people don't and weren't replying with proper arguments, and it's true that being rude and insulting to me, my comments were nonetheless unreasonable and I should be better than that. 

Just be accurate man, so nobody can prove you wrong.

@the little thug pridefully gossiping to others within the crowd:

I am unsure of who you are referring to.

64

General Discussion / Re: Are Black Holes too forgiving?

« on: January 09, 2019, 03:14:41 AM »

this wont fit "no stupid humor" + "no magic" concepts of the game.
personally, i would like to see additional significant penalties for colonies on non habitable worlds, including significant limits on max colony size (and industry slots) on "bad" planets.
it's immersion breaking to have large population on planets of "crematoria" type.

So I'll ask again. Why. so. serious? https://imgur.com/jHo1wZE

65

General Discussion / Re: My biggest problem with Officers

« on: January 09, 2019, 02:59:10 AM »

That's my biggest problem, i get full control over everything else in my fleet, yet can't specialize my officers, why?

To fuel the officer economy.Do you know how much less officers would be hired if the first one you turned up just the way you want it? Think of the families that would go hungry!
On a serious note, getting officers with the skills you want, and with the portraits you want and no duplicates is time consuming.

66

General Discussion / Re: Neat Oddysey Build

« on: January 09, 2019, 02:46:40 AM »

I'd really like to see a video on how to chainstomp officered bounty Apogees/Auroras without getting capped(they have 0.6/0.8 shields, you 1).

Agreed, If everybody posted a video to showcase their point, I think we would have less misunderstandings and it would cut down on the essays of text. A picture is worth a thousand words and a video is worth more than that as it technically covers a lot of points that would take long to describe accurately otherwise.

Technically I believe Hyperion is the fastest ship in the game, due to it's ship system.

Tempest is the ultimate frigate so that's just what popped in my mind first

I don't blame you, Hyperion is a rare snowflake that is more of a spice for the player to use, rather than a staple that you can "easily" get and mass use in a fleet.

67

General Discussion / Re: Neat Oddysey Build

« on: January 09, 2019, 02:36:50 AM »

- not faster than a tempest

Technically I believe Hyperion is the fastest ship in the game, due to it's ship system.

68

General Discussion / Re: Neat Oddysey Build

« on: January 09, 2019, 01:18:35 AM »

Ooooh, I get it, you're trolling me! Well played! For a second I thought you wrote that seriously.

Ah, I see you don't actually read anything I type. Ok then, I'm done with this conversation.

I think Goumindong and Lucky33 deserve each other, based on the zeal of their opinions. At least you got the less vengeful guy.

69

General Discussion / Re: Are Black Holes too forgiving?

« on: January 09, 2019, 12:51:55 AM »

Well, then I hope you're not too disappointed when it gets patched out? It's terrible for balance and nonsensical at best. Maybe if it was left in as an easter egg, but they had a 400%-500% hazard rating.

Something like that....I don't think it should be possible regularly, but lets say 1 colony on a star or black hole, does have a certain allure to it, as an easter egg.

70

General Discussion / Re: Neat Oddysey Build

« on: January 08, 2019, 03:51:35 PM »

@OP well your thread has turned into a general bickering discussion.

Every forum needs one.

Onslaughts can safely vent in combat, even when being fired on, (probably with a full flux vent less than 6 or 7 seconds, depending on capacitors) because it has the highest armor in the game, while Odyssey's are stuck with cruiser level armor.

Depends, missiles like reapers will tear through it regardless. So the accurate thing to say is it's "safer".

So a moderately specialized anti-shield (and really not even that much, as the heavy maulers are still there rather than HVDs) will do about triple the anti-shield damage of an Odyssey.
Saying that an Odyssey has more DPS than an Onslaught is just plain false. It has about 50% better dissipation, yes, but the efficiency of ballistics, the double damage kinetics vs shields and HE vs armor, the superior efficiency of TPCs, and the longer ranged nature of most guns make up for that and much much more. The Odyssey simply does not have enough guns; Dual Plasma is nice, and IR pulse is a possibility if you can close to 500 range with such a fragile ship (doable but hardly ideal, and they will be doing minimum damage to armor). Sabots help, but the pods can only output 4 at a time, they can be shot down much more easily than rockets due to saturation, the refire delay is substantial , and its doubtful that an Odyssey can really afford extended missile racks like an Onslaught can.

Indeed Onslaught has access to specialized damage such as kintetic or He. Perks of ballistic weapons. I personally agree that onslaught has more firepower than odyssey, the odyssey just has the option to flank and hit vulnerable spots better, but in a straight on fight where 2 ships stay in front of each other, Onslaught has more firepower.

Odysseys are nice ships and fun to fly; probably the number 3 ship in the game in terms of power, maybe number 4 behind a Conquest. But the gap between one of them and a true battleship is large.

Rankings depend on what kind of strength you value and what kind of weakness you find unacceptable.

71

General Discussion / Re: Neat Oddysey Build

« on: January 08, 2019, 12:05:37 PM »

I think the main difference is what you value more, flux efficiency, range, or more dps and hard flux. Both are good.

Tachyon has atrocious flux efficiency(even worse when taking soft flux/dissipation mechanics into account).

You are right, my bad, I meant low flux/sec compared to something like Plasma cannon, not efficiency.

72

General Discussion / Re: Neat Oddysey Build

« on: January 08, 2019, 11:02:54 AM »

Ok, clarification: tachyon will be slower/harder than plasma cannons against remnants and bounties. Bad against shields and even if you are already behind the armored bricks plasma will do more.
Advantage of tachyon is that you can shoot from further away, but if you take too long to kill things your other ships are outnumbered and it's easy to take losses.
Good against pirates, but anything is good against pirates.

Tacyhon in general is a decent weapon, but it needs a Sunder(cheap, fragile and has damage boosting system) or Paragon(can use the range/numbers to overpower things fast).

I think the main difference is what you value more, flux efficiency, range, or more dps and hard flux. Both are good.

73

General Discussion / Re: Neat Oddysey Build

« on: January 08, 2019, 09:17:20 AM »

The relevant video would be a demo on how well Tach Odyssey works against the biggest threats in the game.
If you only play sim/missions I can send some saves with maxed relevant combat skills and lots of weapons/ships so you can choose your fleet.
I absolutely friggin guarantee you that plasma/tactical/reaper Odyssey has a much easier time killing things and keeping its allies alive.

When I say general, I do mean general as not just the biggest threats or just pirates but everything in the game and how often you run into it. Naturally if you are going very high threat or very low thread, certain loadouts become more optimal.

74

General Discussion / Re: [Question} Any way to customize your station's load-out?

« on: January 08, 2019, 05:10:44 AM »

I know you can downgrade then upgrade again to refresh the weapons. Perhaps there is a mod that will allow for a deeper level of customization? Thanks for the help.

I certainly would find station customization to be nice feature.

75

General Discussion / Re: Are Black Holes too forgiving?

« on: January 08, 2019, 05:06:05 AM »

we already have horrible neutron star
we already have the worst thing that happened to the startsector - damn warp storms
I completely disagree with topic starter
It’s not necessary to add even more horrible events to the game, the game is already unpleasant to fly, or at least make them optional.

P.S. But of course it’s worth the work, I don’t know, maybe it's because of the mods, but I colonized the black hole, there is only 100% hazard rating

Spoiler

[close]

But neutron stars are fun!
But hyper space storms are fun, you can surf them for added speed.
And black holes are rare it's not like you would be dealing with them all the the time?

P.S colonized black hole is

Spoiler

racist

[close]

colonies on non primary stars, including black holes, is known bug

Too bad, I find the idea of colonizing stars/black holes to be pretty cool concept, if you can then have special hull mods (like solar shielding) for your personal fleet and your colony fleet in general, it could be an interesting tactic for colonys defence